16 December 2010 2:15 PM

The Rapid Reaction Unit writes...

I've placed answers to postings by Mr Charles, Mr 'Craze' and Mr Everett in the appropriate threads. I'll make responses to some other comments here.

If Mr Puhse thinks I am 'out of my depth' with cannabis, whatever that means, can he explain in what way? Otherwise I shall just conclude that he disagrees with me but is not prepared - or able - to state the grounds on which he does so.

'Malcolm' from behind a name which does not actually identify him, claims that Robin Murray, a noted professor, has been 'discredited'. This is a serious allegation. Can he please tell me when and where and by whom this alleged discrediting was done? Or I shall conclude that what he means is that he does not like what Professor Murray says. Which is not the same thing.

Doctor (of what?) Sean Thomas says: 'I am fed up with Peter Hitchens' hypocrisy (in terms of using false argumentation and sophistry), and I have a particular distaste for his use of the straw-man. He states: “The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.” Just one point for now: how is the contention (that self-stupefaction is a private matter...) “false in a hundred ways”? Since I'm feeling generous, I'm happy to give you the opportunity to provide ten distinct reasons. But 100 is nonsensical hyperbole, and deserves retraction (or at the very least, modification).'

I had not heard this definition of hypocrisy before. I thought it consisted of publicly preaching one form of behaviour while privately practising another.

If his use of language is this imprecise, one has to wonder about his doctorate in whatever it is.

Nor is the example he cites an example of the straw man, so far as I can see.

What he means is that he disagrees with me. Presumably he does not wish to say this, as he will then need to explain why. And he does not wish to do so, or is unable to do so. Easier by far to attack me instead, eh, doc?

Here are several ways in which the user of illegal drugs might have an effect on lives beyond his own.

1.Personal distress to his immediate family (I will list this as one, though it encompasses so many different griefs, disappointments, miseries and pains, from despair and loss to actual theft and violence that it really counts as dozens)2.Disadvantage to work colleagues who have to cover for his decreased competence and diligence (accompanied by his invariable inability to recognise that they *are* decreased)2.Disadvantage to those who suffer from the crimes he is more likely to commit, especially theft4.Disadvantage to those who will suffer from his inattention, sloth or incompetence on the roads5.Disadvantage to those who might suffer from the above in his workplace6.Disruption of the education of those who are at the same educational establishment7.Costs to society in general of his damaged health, wrecked education and diminished productivity8. Cost to society in general in the increased need for drug testing and surveillance as drug abuse becomes more prevalent9. Increased level of crime caused by the demoralisation of each individual who seeks stupefaction through drugs10. Decreased liberty of law-abiding individual in areas where drug users congregate

All these factors radiate outwards in dozens of different ways into any society which tolerates drug abuse. Two other effects are the growing vociferousness and power of self-serving lobbies demanding that society be made worse to suit their greasy pleasures. Ultimately, if they are successful, we could see political parties and governments subsidised by the makers and sellers of narcotics, and find ourselves, openly or covertly, living in a corrupt narco-state. I doubt whether any of these is enough for Doctor Thomas. I wonder why that would be.

Tarquin states: 'It's a pity that you cannot prove what you say about crime figures. It may well be true, figures are fiddled, crimes are unrecorded, but without any sort of evidence aside from selective horror stories found usually in this dear publication, we have no way of knowing how bad crime is.'

I don't know about 'selective horror stories'. They are only selective in so far as they are a small minority of the huge catalogue of crimes of which newspapers are aware, which have to be increasingly horrifying and spectacular to attract the notice of national media at all. I sometimes see murder reports in my local paper so full of grisly violence that they would once have been national newspaper front page leads, but are now so commonplace that they are relegated to inside pages in provincial weeklies.

My case is that those who claim that official figures 'prove' that crime is falling are both naive and wilfully self-deluding. They misunderstand the nature of official statistics, which are not gathered or presented in a neutral fashion or with neutral purposes. And they ignore my clearly reasoned point, that by their nature they do not record a great deal which the public regard as crime.

I have also pointed out one of the major flaws in the BCS, which 'Tarquin' simply ignores.

What seems clear to me is that the experience of most people is that they are less safe in their homes or in the streets than they used to be, and that disorder of the kind I describe, which is regarded as important by its victims and as trivial by the authorities, is growing and uncontrolled.

'Tarquin' suggests: ‘How about bringing a solution to the table so we can actually find out how bad it really is?’I'd reply that we know all too clearly how bad it is. The immediate solutions are the restoration of preventive police foot patrolling and the restoration of the principle of punishment in the justice system, backed up by a long-term restoration of the married family and parental authority in childhood. I do like that word 'restoration'. Yes, you can turn the clock back.

I refer William MacDougall to my chapter on cars and railways in 'The Cameron Delusion'.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As far as I am aware ( and I would be pleased if someone could correct me) using Cannabis once cannot and does not lead to psychosis and being locked up in a mental hospital. The reason why someone develops mental illness is multifactorial and in some cases is simply that there is a genetic predisposition. I would advise anyone reading this never go as far as even taking one puff as you could be susceptible - do not take the risk. I completely agree with Peter Hitchen that the penalties for possesion should be much harsher and as an absolute minimum include 6 months of prison with hard labour; no sky tv, pool tables or easy work regimes in prison. I have visited somebody in prison who committed a crime and although behind locked doors the regime is a joke: there is no serious attempt at punishment ie do some hard work like 9-5 6 days a week. Work brings back self respect,dignity and a sense of responsibility and this is the most vital aspect of possible rehabilitaton/repentance/re-integration into society. This is the REAL reason why re-oofending rate is too high - vey little constructive demand to get criminals to do hard labour eg fixing roads, railways,growing veg and harvesting, picking up rubbish, scrubbing toilets, learning to read and write if illiterate etc..
Cannabis could lead to using more addictive drugs eg heroin but we should not forget that nicotine,ethanol and caffeine is a drug and the occasional glass of red wine makes us rejoice at the goodness of God. One glass of wine a few times a week does not cause someone to become an alcoholic. My solution would be to build more prisons and seeing as I relish a challenge if all the people on this blog would write to David Cameron and elect me to run one I promise to ban tvs, pool tables, and easy work regimes and get every able prisoner out doing seriously hard work in the community, countryside, roads, railways etcc. What this country needs is a massive drive to change the way prisons operate and I would have no hesitation and commitment to having a very good go at doing it as I could do with a change from my current day job. Happy New Year to all and keep up the excellent quality of your journalism Peter. Thank you

It is all very well for Peter Hitchens to say that it is foolish to vote for the Cameron Conservatives. Indeed the sight of Cameron's vacuuous, infantile, grinning face makes me almost physically ill, as do the caprine features of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What, however, dos he propose as an alternativ/ The BNP? What other alternative is there? I am asking this in all seriousness.

You claim that immigration is never discussed. I am not at all sure which country you live in or which papers you read - but it is certainly not the Britain that I know, where immigration is discussed constantly."

I agree with MW. Grant may be right when he says that it is always under discussion but is it? Is it really? Discussed it may be but never properly!

Have a look on any chat show and see how they discuss it. There is usually some objection from some nincompoop plucked off the street who comes across as bitter and narrow minded. Then we will have comments from the enlightened liberals who will tell us how much they love living in a "melting pot", how much they abhor racism, how much the Indian/Mexican/Cornish restaurant at the bottom of their street has raised culture levels etc etc. To top it off they will call for 'tolerance' like they are ambassadors for peace attempting to hold back the hateful braying mob of intolerants and open the minds of "them who don't like change" etc. This will then be topped off by a bit of fear mongering about the rise of the BNP..I think you know the rest.

It is usually hosted by Nicky Campbell, who seems fairly likeable but is a bit of a pompous know-it-all...

(quick aside- did anyone see that programme 'Coppers' the other week? Brilliant. What a nasty unpleasant bunch of hypocrites the 'Unite Against Fascism' lot are!)

Anyway, MW is right, it isn't discussed properly. I think immigration can be a good thing, when properly managed,especially for an island like Britain. What really irks though is that the underlying consequences of letting anyone in and paying them huge sums of money for not much in return are never properly discussed and that more is assumed to be better!

"Regarding the B & B article, the owners of the B & B believe in the santity of marriage of one man, one woman for life.
Right, how do they deal with the problem of Divorcees, firstly how would they know,secondly their belief of one man and one woman for life cannot apply OR
do they mean one man and one woman at a time. That too would count as discrimination as divorce obviously does not enter their beliefs, does it?"

Why should such B&B owners be under any obligation to "know" whether or not a man and woman who registered themselves on arrival as Mr and Mrs were truly revealing their marital status? It is not a sin, after all, to be deceived. Why should they not in charity take such guests at their word? If a divorced couple, having learned the owners' marital stipulations, chose nevertheless to register themselves as a couple though with different surnames, they would have only themselves to blame, if they were refused accommodation.
Moreover if, as you suggest about those owners, "divorce obviously does not enter their beliefs" then a 'divorced' couple would still according to their principles be a married couple and so would qualify for admission.
There is an even more subtle - and for me an even more cogent - objection to such 'divorced' couples being refused accommodation, since the expression "divorced couple" is itself a contradiction in terms, for insofar as they were a "couple", they could not be "divorced" and insofar as they were "divorced", they could not be a "couple".
The usual suspects will, of course, accuse me of being "pedantic" but I happen to think that the meaning of the words we use reveals the way we may be thinking.

Contributor C Donnelly writes:
"As one great general said, "There will always be casualties" and that fact has not and never will change."

It certainly show no sign of changing any time soon. The problem, as I see it, is that our rulers and their favourite soothsayers seem to have reached the official conclusion that it is possible to devise a system of laws which will allow everyone to have 'equal rights' without the 'rights' of others being thereby infringed. They knew as children in their school playground that such a system was unrealistic because as children in the playground they had to face and somehow rub along with other children who had little respect for school rules and plainly believed in the dominance of the most aggressive.
'Rights' can rarely be given to one man without being taken away from another. Every time a thief is let off lightly, the property of everyone loses a little of its value; everytime a rapist is treated leniently, the safety of all women is a little more threatened and every time a murderer escapes suffering what he has himself perpetrated, the lives of all people are a little more menaced than they were before.
With 'rights', as with so many other things, we cannot pay Paul without robbing Peter but our rulers think we can amd they are wrong.

I just cannot understand why anyone n their right minds wants to sniff: inject: take toxic substances for so called kicks. Just imagine.....you are sitting in you airplane seat to go on holiday with the certain knowledge that you captain and crew were high on drugs the night before because some fool of a Labour minister changed the law to make it legal. What if your train driver, taxi driver millions of ordinary motorists were high on drugs, what a frightening thought and what a terrible wolrd it would be. This minister should be sacked and put out to pasture.....Dangerous people in high places with dangerous ideas ruling our lives.

Mr Hitchens why do you not like anybody,do you ever have a good word to say about anyone? There is so much misery in the world do you have to make it worse by condemning one set of people which can only be prejudice and bigotry.
Live and let live, they are not hurting you

Regarding the B & B article, the owners of the B & B believe in the santity of marriage of one man, one woman for life.
Right, how do they deal with the problem of Divorcees, firstly how would they know,secondly their belief of one man and one woman for life cannot apply OR
do they mean one man and one woman at a time. That too would count as discrimination as divorce obviously does not enter their beliefs, does it?

Contributor Dr Sean Thomas writes:
"I think this issue then devolves into the issue of whether drugs should be criminalised. I think not, for reasons I have tried to elucidate above."

The problem, if I have understood Dr Thomas' rather verbose and less than logically lucid contribution, seems to me well exemplified by three of his comments:
1. "Taken in the abstract, there is no moral reason why we should prevent other people doing things to their own body, even if we disagree with those things done."
What if the "other people" should do things so deleterious to their bodies that "we" might find ourselves having to support by our taxes their resultant incapacity for normal functioning?
2. "Drug use can cause distress to immediate family, provided the immediate family are in fact distressed."
This almost comic assertion makes it difficult to be sure that its author's intention is understood. After all, if "the immediate family are in fact distressed," in what way "can" drug use "cause distress to immediate family". If the immediate family members are not already distressed, does the good doctor suggest that drug use can not subsequently cause them distress?"
Or is the meaning a mere self-defining hendiadys, like saying that poets can write poetry, provided that what gets written by them turns out to be poetic? Wow, I hadn't thought of it that way!
3. "decreased competence at work or at education, or on the roads, are correct if those factors actually occur."
Yes, I think I see now! It's all a matter of the meaning of the words we use, isn't it?
What a wonderful thing the professorial mind is, to be sure. Dr Thomas' lectures must be an inspiration to his students to judge from his recommendations like:
"So my approach would be get drunk, get stoned, get high. Just don’t be a drunk, or a stoner. Sober up afterwards."
Plainly a veritable ornament of the teaching profession!

I am a very ordinary person but have traveled extensively and, as an ex-serviceman, have seen much in my long life. I am tired of all the so called intelligencia defending drug users, criminals and immigrants who have enjoyed the benefits provided by our country and then feel they have the right to kill innocent people. These miscreants, who cannot live in a civilised society, have to be subjected to discipline as those of us who tax fund their sordid lives also have rights. We all want to do our own thing but the law abiding majority is generally ignored by those considering themselves intellectuals. As one great general said, "There will always be casualties" and that fact has not and never will change.

I’m pleased Mr Hitchens has taken the time to consider my comments. Indeed, I really didn’t expect it. But I appreciate his willingness to engage. Likewise for all other poster (though I can’t engage with all issues for sake of time and economy). First of all, I would like to offer some clarifications, along with some rather honest (and rather shamefaced) apologies. Then I would like to provide some further details about my position on the issue of drugs. I hope I can match the succinct quality I admire in his writing (I doubt I will though).

I have a PhD in law, and I am currently a Lecturer in Commercial Law at the University of Leicester. The reason I used my title is that I am happy to make my comments in my capacity as a professional academic lawyer (and I agree with Mr Hitchen’s distaste for the prevalence of (essentially) anonymous posting). I could say: ‘Google me Peter!’ But I have the (mis)fortune to share a name with an author who once won the Bad Sex in Fiction award, so looking for ‘Sean Thomas’ on the internet can lead to amusing mistakes of identity. As my job title indicates, my speciality is commercial law, not drugs. Nevertheless, I have a longstanding teaching interest in criminal law, and my research often covers areas of property crimes, so I like to think my interest in this issue is more than that of the ‘interested observer’. In particular I am interested in lay (as opposed to legal) conceptions of the ‘moral’ in criminal law and policy.

On to the apologies: I used the term ‘hypocrisy’ in relation to Mr Hitchen’s commentary that (essentially) the pro-drug side are shrill and closed-minded in relation to the position held by Mr Hitchens. I felt that his reaction was as bad, and I thought this looked like hypocrisy. I agree it was a loose use of the term (certainly I was not implying that he was perhaps a Howard Marks in his private life: if this was what was inferred I apologise). I can see now that I perhaps should have considered my language. As for straw man – we all know this is the style of argumentation whereby a real problem is expanded to unreal levels. Thus I think that the claim that because some people suffer badly from drug consumption, that all drug consumption is bad, is a species of the straw man argument. For now, I shall move on from that as I discuss it later in a bit more depth.

So yes, the doc does disagree with you, and I should have come out and said it clearly. You claimed that the argument that self-stupefaction is not a private matter and that it has effects on people other than the individual drug-taker. I take issue with the first claim, that it is not a private matter. I have some problems with the second claim, that it impacts on others.

For the first claim (that self-intoxication is not a private matter): Taken in the abstract, there is no moral reason why we should prevent other people doing things to their own body, even if we disagree with those things done. If it is not our body, it is not our choice. Only the individual concerned has that right. This is very much a personal opinion, but it derives primarily from the work of the great legal philosopher HLA Hart (for which, I think his rebuttal in his book ‘Law, Liberty and Morality’, to Lord Devlin’s claim that morality and law are necessarily linked, was successful).

As for the second claim, that self-intoxication necessarily impacts on others: I think I agree in part. Drug use can cause distress to immediate family, provided the immediate family are in fact distressed. What if the immediate family do not feel distressed? The problem disappears. (On the same point, I personally don’t think family has much to do with it anyway, but I am not pro-family like Mr Hitchens. That is for a different debate though.)
Similarly the other claims, such as decreased competence at work or at education, or on the roads, are correct if those factors actually occur. But it is not the case that intoxication at one point in time necessarily leads to the problems at all times in the future. So if one chooses to get stoned, fine: just sober up before you interact with others. I agree that drugs do ‘stick’ in the body and brain (to varying degrees), but I do not agree that there is any evidence that the intoxicating aspect remains. It will over time dissipate. The presence of metabolites of cannabis does not mean one is still stoned. So my approach would be get drunk, get stoned, get high. Just don’t be a drunk, or a stoner. Sober up afterwards.

As for the criminal aspect: I think there are many people out there who commit crimes (a) when intoxicated with drugs, and (b) to get money to get intoxicated with drugs. But it would be a faulty syllogism to say that all people who get intoxicated then commit crimes over and above the initial criminal act of obtaining the drugs. I think this issue then devolves into the issue of whether drugs should be criminalised. I think not, for reasons I have tried to elucidate above.

As for the worries about narco-lobby, this reminds me of Gladstone’s claim to have lost an election on a torrent of gin and beer! It may be true: the problem though is with the institution of lobbying, not what is the subject matter of the lobby. Governments need spine and guts.

Finally, a peace offering: I enjoy reading your work Mr Hitchens. You make me think (after I have calmed any initial rage!). I agree with some of your points, but not all. For instance, I agree with your penal policy: if you want criminal law to work you need severe punishment (though not to the extent of capital punishment). I just disagree that self-intoxication in situations where others are not actually harmed is a valid subject for criminalisation. I agree with you on the pernicious growth of ‘security’ in the name of liberty: I think that governmental intrusion into the personal sphere is unjust. I happen to think that criminalisation of drug usage is a species of the same problem. So although you may not read/reply to this until later, I would like to apologise for my woolly writing earlier. I know I have only covered some of the points raised, but I hope I have clarified my position. If you are ever passing Leicester, please feel free to contact me and I can see if we can arrange a more detailed discussion of these issues. Enjoy your religious celebrations. I shall enjoy my secular version.

All ten of Hitchens' anti-cannabis points could be applied directly to alcohol. And it just won't do to have Hitchens belittle this point. Alcohol consumption and, indeed, addiction is actively pursued in this country by the large alcoholic drink corporations in much the same way that cigarette addiction was pursued - by presenting alcohol as a fashionable social good. The argument that we shouldn't therefore promote the use of other substances in society is just a red herring as far as I'm concerned. What is Hitchens going to propose be done about alcohol. His view seems to be view that we can't do anything about it as it is so ingrained in our culture. But so is supermarket shopping and car ownership. And he actively proposes that the state immediately step in to change those cultures. Why not also with alcohol, then? How about a 1000% increase in alcohol duty with immediate effect?

Contributor Colin Walker writes:
"If you do believe that intoxication by whatever means is 'immoral', where is the line of 'immorality'?"

Well, isn't it self-evident to any reasonable mind that ingesting toxic substances is dangerous, sir? What you call "immorality" in this connexion would surely very soon be overtaken by plain common sense. You might as well ask whether punching yourself on the nose is "immoral"; no doubt it is but there is no need for a sensible person even to think about the morality involved, because the pain which such an absurd action would cause would exercise a much more effective and immediate veto on such daft behaviour.
Smoking has now been clearly seen for the destructive form of intoxication which it is. We can only hope that eventually, when the current addiction of seemingly many people to inordinate ingestions of alcohol has passed away, a generation may arise for which such excesses are as abhorrent as smoking is becoming already. But while our ramshackle society is faced with weaning its citizens off those two dangerous toxic habits, you surely cannot hold the absurd view, sir, that other similar menaces should be adopted to take their place? That would be plain silly.

You claim that immigration is never discussed. I am not at all sure which country you live in or which papers you read - but it is certainly not the Britain that I know, where immigration is discussed constantly.".

Well yes, it might be discussed in the newspapers and, perhapes, the public bars (are there still any?) of the land but, in political circles, it is the great unmentionable subject across all three of the major political parties. Well not quite, they will tell you the figures are wrong and it is nowhere near as bad as it appears. Or that they are definitely planning to do something about it in the very near future as soon as the time is right. In the meantime we are being swamped.

"The immediate solutions are the restoration of preventive police foot patrolling and the restoration of the principle of punishment in the justice system, backed up by a long-term restoration of the married family and parental authority in childhood. I do like that word 'restoration'. Yes, you can turn the clock back. "

"The immediate solutions are the restoration of preventive police foot patrolling and the restoration of the principle of punishment in the justice system, backed up by a long-term restoration of the married family and parental authority in childhood. I do like that word 'restoration'. Yes, you can turn the clock back. "

Never thought I'd see you admit that you want the rose tinted ideals of the fifties Peter. Ok maybe the idea of the future that people had in the fifties.

On the point of your list of 10 reasons that "the successful achievement of a sufficient level of mental incompetence" is not a private matter, I was wondering if that applies to only illegal drugs.
Your points apply equally or even more apparently to both alcohol and tobacco.
They also apply to excising TV, gaming, reading or even exercising to a certain degree.
The point being that they apply to excesses not the act itself. One drink/cigarette/joint/book/game/film/work-out will not result in any of the above nor will responsible repetition of any of them. Irresponsibility is the key yet you seem to have overlooked it.

I'm wondering if you think the drugs that have been made illegal somehow are worse than those that are legal.
Take Methadrone as an example. Was it, in the terms of your earlier article, 'immoral' before it was made illegal.
What about before it was 'thought' to be dangerous? Incidentally I'm still not convinced that it's as dangerous as was suggested by some.
What about salvia (I believe it's still legal) or poppers?
What about cocaine, heroin, cannabis, MDMA, LSD and every other drug that is illegal before it was made so?
How about morphine and Ritalin?

Just to clarify, I do agree that in the case of a clearly and immediately dangerous substance I can see the point of prohibition but for something that in many cases is less dangerous than a poor diet I cannot. Even in the case of the dangerous substance I do not agree that use is 'immoral', unless it is irresponsible, in that case the irresponsibility is the source of the 'immorality'

If you do believe that intoxication by whatever means is 'immoral', where is the line of 'immorality'?
Is it mere selfishness?

Your argument is based purely on a moralistic code and ideology which is frankly out of touch with the modern world (and arguably was out of touch with the world 50 years ago too).

I agree that we could see political parties and governments subsidised by the makers and sellers of narcotics. It's funny that the people over at for example the Guardian claim to be suspicious of big business until they get onto the subject of drugs. Then all of a sudden they seem determined to hand the worlds hedonic drugs market over to the corporations, thus possibly plunging our governments deeply into the pockets of super-sized, super-sleazey multi-national drug companies.

The way I see it; we either have to instigate a 'to hell with it, let them take whatever drugs they like' approach. Or use draconian force to prosecute anyone in possession of even the tiniest amount of a banned substance. It is quite sensible to target the demand side of any illicit trade, we do it with prostitution, so why not narcotics?

On a separate note, just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed "The Rage Against God", which I've now read several times. It played some part in helping me return to Christianity.

You might be interested in an article in today's Daily Telegraph concerning the EU diary that's recently been sent out to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, in which religious festivals of all faiths save one (and you can guess which) are listed.

Please keep up the good work in your blog, it's always a pleasure to hear a sane voice amongst the babbling party hacks. Remember also that, whatever vituperation and abuse you are subjected to by the soixante-huitard establishment of the LibLabCon parties and the BBC, you probably address the concerns of the majority of the British people rather more than do they.

You are completely right that crime rose at quite a horrific level throughout most of the 20th century, especially in the post-war period. I have absolutely no doubt about that, even though the exact reasons for it can be debated. But that does not invalidate my point.

Michael Williamson

You claim that immigration is never discussed. I am not at all sure which country you live in or which papers you read - but it is certainly not the Britain that I know, where immigration is discussed constantly.

Of course, statistics are used by governments for their own ends - they will always highlight the good and seek to minimise the bad. The difference here is that, if we are to believe Mr Hitchens, they are uniquely manipulating the crime statistics to an extent that happens in no other policy area. Mr Hitchens rightly says, for example, that children in married families do better in virtually every aspect of life. How do we know this? Official statistics. But, if the government is so amazingly skillful at fiddling the crime statistics, why is it so oafish as to let such a blatantly pro-marriage statistic into the public domain, when it is, according to Mr Hitchens, irretrievably anti-marriage, and suppressing this fact would be relatively simple? Similar examples are legion in health, education, child protection, and virtually any policy area you care to mention. Why is it uniquely in the area of crime that the government has succeeded not merely in fiddling the figures, but getting them to show the polar opposite of what Mr Hitchens claims is happening?

@sjc613 I apologise for my ignorance of Peters previous articles but I was responding specifically to this article as this was the first article of his I had read and did not have time to go through each of his previous articles to gather a complete picture of this mans opinion on this subject as a whole so please give me the benefit of the doubt.

concerning this quote;
"But I've never seen why the undoubted dangers of alcohol are an argument for permitting any more intoxicating poisons. If alcohol's bad, that's surely an argument for restricting its sale as far as possible, not for legalising dope."

Refer to my above comment on this.

I'm assuming that you agreeing with this particular quote that this too is your own personal opinion? And if so do you not agree that this argument is condradictory and weak as it does not take into account the wide range of arguments for legalisation whilst assuming that the statement itself is correct, which of course is highly debatable. It is a sweeping assumption that does not take into account variables, and weigh against eachother, the positives and negatives of both sides of the argument.

You claim that the dangers of alcohol is not an argument for legalising more intoxicating drugs but fail to take into account the negative impact of criminalisation and lack of regulation in the creation and distribution of drugs that the laws themself create.

The only point that this statement argues is that alcohol is bad and that it should be further regulated and that this is the reason why drugs should not be legalised. I can't accept this as it fails to take into account anything in particular other than an assumption that its correct without actually presenting a point as to why.

I am grateful for your response to my accusation of hypocrisy, but I do not thank you for your bizarre mock-accent and fake quote used in an attempt to caricature me. Is this how you imagine all people with an opposing view speak? This is Littlejohn territory.

I made no argument for or against introducing ‘poisons’, I simply pointed to the inconsistency of your own position when contrasted with your behaviour. (By the way, these substances have already been introduced, the question is how we deal with them now. Canute-like attempts to reseal Pandora’s box are doomed from the outset).

On Monday you said “the use of such drugs is itself an immoral and selfish act”. “Such drugs” apparently meaning a diverse group of intoxicants including cannabis, ecstasy, heroin, cocaine and psychedelic drugs, but for some reason not the drug which you consume. This is an arbitrary distinction, based on nothing more than our own history and perspective. In another country the list may be entirely different. In Saudi Arabia puritanical opinion-formers will be making very similar criticisms of the Al-Thunayan families’ parties, describing the undeserved pleasure derived from the immoral alcohol drinking therein. In Bolivia men will be describing how anything other than coca-chewing will lead their country to Hell-in-a-handcart. There are places where anything but cannabis smoking is frowned upon.

You have simply restated that the pleasure derived from illicit substances is somehow undeserved (euphoria is a genuinely inaccurate word). The implication is that the pleasure derived from your wine is somehow deserved. Can you justify this? Without an explanation it’s merely a baseless assertion that your drugs are better than the others.

You acknowledge the risks involved in alcohol consumption, and the negative impact that consumption can have. You even go as far to say it should be banned, if only that were possible. But then you turn around and join in yourself, seemingly with a “Can’t beat ‘em? Join ‘em” attitude. You say you do not drink to become intoxicated but apparently you’ll consume up to half a bottle of wine in a sitting. This would have a significant impact on your thought processes and reaction times. Would you drive after your half-bottle? I’m assuming (and hoping) not.

If intoxication really is in violation of one of the most essential moral rules of advanced civilisation, then why do you do it? Will the excuse “but I *really* like the flavour” truly stand up when you are before the pearly gates? Your tedious, repetitive attempts to justify your own drug use whilst simultaneously issuing acerbic condemnations to others in the harshest tones is pure and simple hypocrisy.

''No, I did not say 'intoxicating substances'. Nor, though I drink wine frequently, do I do so to become intoxicated. I was referring to the undeserved euphoria sought and found by users of illegal mind-altering drugs. Of course many of the dangers of drugs are also dangers of alcohol. That is why I (unlike the drug advocates who constantly bring up this red herring, and couldn't in fact care less about the scourge of alcohol) support practical measures to restrict the sale of alcohol, just as I support equally practical measures to throw persistent illegal drug users into the slammer. If I thought it was possible to remove alcohol from our society in the same way, I'd support that too. But it isn't. The tedious repetitiousness of the druggie posters is almost unbelievable. Their belief that the 'wot abaht alcohol, then, eh,' 'argument' (addressed and exploded here more times than I care to remember) is effective or valid is pitiful.
One more time. The undoubted evils of alcohol and tobacco could never be a rational argument for introducing any more legal poisons into our society. On the contrary, they are a very strong argument for ensuring we never make the same mistake again.''

Posted by: Peter Hitchens | 16 December 2010 at 05:37 PM

Using your logic would it not be better for society to restrict and decriminalise illicit drugs in the same way in which you advocate the restriction of alcohol sales. As you believe that it would be better for society to impose harsh restrictions on alcohol, would it not be better for us to legalise and impose the same harsh restrictions on the sale of drugs.

This would make money for the government in the form of tax that could be used to fund drug rehab programs, whilst simultaneously taking the large majority of control out of the hands of criminals and improving the quality of substances addicts taking.

I am unconvinced that criminalising drugs addicts beyond which they are already is the answer as this will just lead to more people in jail and ultimately cost the taxpayer more money than if an effectively funded (through legalisation and taxation of drugs) drug legalisation and rehabilitation scheme were to be implemented .

I believe it is naive ignorance for us to just criminalise and punish someone who so obviously needs and would better benefit from psycological help.

I think we should be having a serious debate about this and not just putting our fingers in our ears and shouting ''lalala drugs are bad lalala'' at the top of voice as you are displaying by your ignorant comments.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.